Prospects Will Break Your Heart

Houston Astros Top 10 Prospects

the archives are now free.

All Baseball Prospectus Premium and Fantasy articles more than a year old are now free as a thank you to the entire Internet for making our work possible.

Not a subscriber? Get exclusive content like this delivered hot to your inbox every weekday. Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get instant access to the best baseball content on the web.

What Happened in 2012: Singleton finally carried his impressive batting practice power into game action, ripping 52 extra-base hits against Double-A competition, including 21 homers.

Strengths: Easy 7 raw power that should play at solid-average right out of the gate and has the potential to mature into 30-plus home run utility down the line; advanced secondary skills at the plate; excellent strike zone awareness and solid pitch recognition ability.

Weaknesses: Lacks plus athleticism or defensive versatility; arm is below-average; defensive profile at first base will be average at best; still learning how to hit for power; needs to improve against arm-side pitching.

Fantasy Future: Potential to hit in the middle of a major-league lineup, with robust slash line thanks to contact ability, on-base skills, and game power. (.275/.375/.500)

The Year Ahead: Clear path to the majors, but no need to rush the 21-year-old to the show. A few months in Triple-A will be mutually beneficial to player and organization alike, as Singleton can rake in a hitter-friendly environment and the Astros can keep the clock on standby. At some point in the season, Singleton will reach the highest level, and will show flashes of his offensive potential while also showing his weaknesses. The power isn’t ready to play at full maturity yet, and the quality of the hit tool will be put to the test against pitchers that can offer both velocity and the ability to sequence an above-average secondary arsenal.

What Happened in 2012: After creating impressive buzz on the amateur showcase circuit, Correa was selected 1:1 in the 2012 draft by the Astros and quickly became the highest-ceiling player in the entire organization.

Weaknesses: Hit tool is currently underdeveloped in relation to other tools; swing can get long and setup unbalanced; game power could be slow to come; fast-twitch athlete, but body could escape him and limit range at position; massive collection of raw tools that need to find game refinement.

Overall Future Potential: 7; all-star

Explanation of Risk: High risk because of age and current level of tool refinement; huge makeup and instincts keep the risk from being extreme

Fantasy Future: Could end up among the best players in the game, with a future 6 hit tool, 7 power, and the baserunning instincts and quickness for stolen bases. At his peak, he could be a .280/.380/.500 shortstop with above-average defensive chops.

The Year Ahead: Correa could stumble and it could look ugly before he blossoms in professional ball. Tool refinement and utility can take time, and Correa will play the 2013 season at the age of 18, where he should get his first taste of full-season ball and full-season level pitching. I don’t expect an explosion yet, but don’t jump off the bandwagon if Correa happens to stumble. He has legit star potential at the highest level.

Weaknesses: Despite collegiate resume, still plays the game with immaturity; hit tool is weakest of all tools; approach is too aggressive and pitch-recognition skills are unrefined; lots of swing-and-miss in the stick; high effort swing; mechanical glitches; long-term concerns about offensive utility.

Overall Future Potential: 6; first-division player

Explanation of Risk: High risk because of immature offensive profile; often plays like an unrefined 18-year-old, not 23-year-old; could easily fail to reach 6 ceiling; floor of fourth/fifth outfielder more likely than all-star.

Fantasy Future: If the bat reaches full maturity, Springer could hit .270, with 20/20 offensive skills coming from a premium defensive position.

The Year Ahead: Springer’s performance in 2012 raised some red flags about his offensive approach and hit tool utility. He has above-average defensive skills, and the secondary skills will play if he can refine some of the all-or-nothing in his swing.

What Happened in 2012: After a season where DeShields was pushed into full-season before his skill-set was ready, the son of Delino DeShields (shocking) exploded in the Sally League, hitting for average, reaching base at a high clip, and stealing 83 bases in 97 attempts.

Strengths: 8 run, with both quickness, a second gear, and field awareness; mature approach at the plate; excellent ball tracking and pitch-recognition skills; hit tool could be plus; has a lot of juice in his bat for his size; physical player, with strength; total gamer with big makeup

Weaknesses: Limited defensive profile; 4 arm; glove has improved enough to stick at second base, but lacks plus actions and can’t play shortstop; can get too passive at the plate; doesn’t have typical offensive profile for position.

Overall Future Potential: 6; first-division player

Explanation of Risk: Moderate risk; despite age, DeShields has shown a mature understanding of the game, and has responded to failure with impressive response; the work ethic is very strong and his familiarity with the process gives him an advantage.

Fantasy Future: Throwback type of player, with a chance to hit .280/.380/.450, with 10 home runs, a ton of triples and 80 steals. Could be a big fantasy player at maturity.

The Year Ahead: DeShields will return to the friendly confines of the California League, where he should continue to show that his limited height doesn’t limit the pop in his bat. I think his status is on the rise, especially if the league helps inflate his offensive numbers.

What Happened in 2012: The Texas native got one step closer to the majors by reaching Triple-A and more than holding his own in five starts at that level.

Strengths: Prototypical starter’s size; plus-plus arm strength; big fastball that works in the 94-97 mph range and can touch higher; can work in elite velocity range in bursts; hard curveball shows impressive shape and intense depth in the upper-70/low-80s; works as a plus pitch and could end up a 7.

Weaknesses: Mechanics aren’t conducive for good command profile; throws across his body; some recoil and a head jerk in the follow-through; changeup can flash, but remains an inconsistent offering; doesn’t miss bats like stuff suggests; fastball is often visible early out of the hand; questions about makeup and pitchability.

Overall Future Potential: 6; late-inning reliever

Explanation of Risk: Moderate risk; has the stuff to pitch in major-league bullpen and is knocking on the door. Highly unlikely to reach ultimate ceiling because of lack of pitchability and questions about makeup.

Fantasy Future: Has a late-inning ceiling, so he could end up with either holds or saves at the highest level, depending on the role.

The Year Ahead: Cosart has the stuff to be an elite closer, but he hasn’t shown an ability to utilize his stuff to miss bats, and there are some in the industry who question whether or not he has the fortitude to close high-leverage games at the major-league level. To start, Cosart will need to refine his command and improve his changeup, which will start with smoother, more fluid mechanics. In either role, his pitchability will need to improve to help set hitters up and keep barrels off his fastball.

What Happened in 2012: Repeating Double-A as a 21-year-old. Villar took moderate steps forward on the field, making better contact at the plate, improving his approach, and stealing more bases; season was cut short after he fractured his hand in a fight with a bathroom door.

Weaknesses: Needs to slow his game down; plays loose on both sides of the ball; continues to make routine/fundamental mistakes in the field; rushes his actions; will load his swing and sell out for power from the right-side; shows bat speed, but not enough bat control; softer, flat-plane swing from LH side; struggles with pitch-recognition issues and expanding his zone; immaturity issues on/off field.

Overall Future Potential: 6; first-division player

Explanation of Risk: High risk; noisy tools, but immature utility; bat is a big question mark for some; routine errors and on-the-field focus still skill-set issues;

Fantasy Future: Has big wheels and some pop from a premium position. Could end up hitting .265 with 20-plus doubles and 30 steals.

The Year Ahead: Villar will take his toolbox to Triple-A, where a successful hunt for refinement could eventually push him to the major-league level. Some give Villar a utility future, with too many questions about the bat and overall approach to ignore. But the raw tools are impressive, and if the package comes together, Villar has a chance at being an impact player.

What Happened in 2012: Spent the entire season at High-A Lancaster, where the then-19-year-old showed impressive game power and more contact ability than expected.

Strengths: Enormous size and strength; 7 raw power; could play as a 6 in games; leveraged swing with length, but controls the barrel well and can make in-at bat adjustments; easy 6 arm; moves well for his size; doesn’t have all-or-nothing approach.

Weaknesses: Limited defensive profile puts pressure on the bat; has big swing-and-miss in his game; struggles against velocity and breaking balls that expand the zone, especially from right handers; below-average run

Overall Future Potential: 6; first-division player

Explanation of Risk: High risk because of overall profile; hit tool yet to face Double-A level arms; high risk for exploitation at upper levels.

Fantasy Future: Fits mold of prototypical right fielder power bat, with enough contact to hit .260-plus, some OBP skills and raw power that should play in the 20-plus home run range with a chance for more.

The Year Ahead: Dom Santana has a chance to emerge as a legit first-division power bat, but the hit tool has some holes and the next level will help to expose them. The raw power is very big, and he won’t need to hit a ton to let the dog eat in game action, but his-decision making will need to improve or Double-A pitchers will have a field day getting him to chase.

What Happened in 2012: A two-sport star who fell to the 4th round because of a commitment to USC and a blood clot-related issue in his right shoulder that forced him out of spring action, Ruiz could end up being the steal of the draft for the Astros, as the sweet-swinging third baseman has all the physical tools to develop into an impact major leaguer.

Strengths: Strong and athletic; easy 7 arm; good actions in the field; good glove; big power potential; good hit tool projection, with easy and fluid swing; has a knack for barreling balls; natural hitter.

Weaknesses: Overall body of work is limited because of injury and multi-sport profile in high school; has fringy speed and only average range at third base; health issues like blood clots in the throwing arm scare people.

Fantasy Future: Has big offensive ceiling, with 6/6 potential on hit/power. Could be .275 hitter with 25 homers and a good defensive profile at third base.

The Year Ahead: 2013 will be a big year for both Ruiz and those tasked with evaluating the 18-year-old. With a sweet swing and a feel for hitting, Ruiz has a future impact bat, and his defensive skill-set, though not enhanced by plus speed or base-to-base range, have all the components to be solid-average or better. The Astros can afford to take it slow and low with Ruiz, and if he can stay healthy and on the field, we should have a much better feel for the prospect after a full year of professional ball.

What Happened in 2012: Popped in the supplemental first-round and signed for nearly twice the suggested slot amount, McCullers has the type of raw stuff that had many in the industry suggesting he was a top-10 overall talent.

Strengths: Super-sized arm strength; fastball can already work in the 92-96 range, and when he needs to go get it, he can touch the near-elite range; curveball is a hard, nasty pitch, with big velocity and intense action; easy plus projection; could end up a 7; plus athlete; baseball bloodlines and game IQ.

Weaknesses: Struggles with consistency; will lose his delivery and watch the fastball velocity fall under plus; curveball will lose its bite; changeup is fringy at present; command profile has red flags because of effort in delivery and tendency to overthrow.

Fantasy Future: McCullers has closer’s stuff and the mentality for high-leverage situations. If he does in fact move to the bullpen further down the developmental line, he should be able to rack up saves and strikeouts. As a starter, he will have the stuff to miss bats, but the efficiency of the delivery will determine how effective he is.

The Year Ahead: McCullers will continue to refine his mechanics, hoping his plus athleticism allows him to make adjustments and maintain his delivery. His prospect status is very hard to determine at this stage of the game, as he can look like a top-five prospect in the system in one outing, and a fringe top-20 guy in the next. His long-term role might be in the ‘pen, but for now, McCullers will continue to develop as a starter, hoping the maturity of the command and the changeup will push him up these ranks with every passing start.

What Happened in 2012: After a disappointing full-season debut in 2011, the then-20-year-old Foltynewicz repeated the circuit and took a big step forward on the field, improving his statistics across the board.

Strengths: Big, physical frame; smooth delivery and easy ball release; fastball works in the low-90s and can touch higher; shows a good curveball with some depth, and a good changeup with some fading action; in two and half seasons, has already logged 330 innings.

Explanation of Risk: Moderate risk; lacks elite upside, but has good floor; body was built for logging innings; arsenal has some maturity for age.

Fantasy Future: His ceiling is a workhorse innings eater, the kind of pitcher who gives you 200-plus innings and a league-average ERA. He doesn’t project to miss many bats, but if he can limit damage, he could rack up wins on a good team.

The Year Ahead: Foltynewicz has the type of stuff to pitch at the Double-A level right now, which isn’t to say he has the stuff to excel in that environment from the opening bell. Sending a hittable pitcher to the California League could be a recipe for disaster, and the type of move that crushes the confidence of a steady pitcher. Folty needs to refine his command and his secondary profile, but all the pieces are in place for a quality major-league arm. Any kind of positive jump in his arsenal–any added electricity—has the potential to move the needle on his ultimate projection.

Major league ETA: 2014

Prospects on the Rise

1. RHP Adrian Houser: Just missed inclusion in the top 10; great size; good arm strength; works a lively fastball in the low-90s and shows good feel for a sharp curveball. He could easily be a top-10 prospect in the system with a successful season in full-season ball.

2. RHP Vince Velasquez: Prototypical size; a very loose and fluid arm; works in the low-90s with the fastball, but several sources think he has more velocity ready to come on; improving secondary mix; could jump up list if velo spikes and command holds.

3. OF Teoscar Hernandez: 20-year-old outfielder with plus bat speed and a good defensive profile in center field; the 6’2’’, 180-lb. Dominican isn’t a household name, and it will take a very strong full-season campaign in 2012 to jump ahead of his classmates in the top 10, but scouts like the kid, and if you like following deep sleepers, Teoscar is a name worth remembering.

Factors on the Farm (Prospects likely to contribute at the ML level in 2013)

1. RHP Paul Clemens: Not the sexiest of prospects, but an arm that could help the major-league club in middle relief in 2013.

2. LHP Brett Oberholtzer: Big left-hander with average stuff, but he can throw strikes and log innings, so don’t be shocked to see him attempting to log those innings at the major-league level at some point during the season.

3. OF Robbie Grossman: Acquired from Pittsburgh in the Wandy Rodriguez trade, Grossman doesn’t always do a good job convincing the industry that he has the profile of a major-league regular, but thin options and a clean bill of heath could propel Grossman to the big stage at some point in 2013.

The Astros finished 2012 with the worst record in baseball, totaling fewer wins (55-107) than any team since the 2004 Arizona Diamondbacks (51-111). Exacerbating the organization’s short-term outlook is the utter lack of young impact talent on the 25-man roster. Altuve has worked to tighten his approach at the plate, improving his overall offensive production and giving the Astros front office reason to believe he can still develop into a legit first-division regular at the four-spot. On the mound, Lyles saw an increase in velocity across the board, as well as a little more consistency in stuff, but continues to offer up too many mistake pitches to opportunistic major-league lineups for him to currently project to more than a solid no. 4. On the positive side, this summer saw the ‘Stros jettison older talent for a sizeable collection of minor-league depth and potential role players, including potential 2013 contributors Robbie Grossman and Asher Wojciechowski. Jason Castro, Brett Wallace, JD Martinez and Matt Dominguez likely all profile best as second-division starters, with Jimmy Paredes offering up some value as a utility player. –Nick Faleris

A Parting Thought…Although built primarily on depth--rather than with cathedral planks of high-ceiling talent--the Astros have made incredible strides to stock their system with players who have legit major-league profiles and strong chances to achieve that outcome.

Big fan of Goldstein here, but a bigger Beatles fan. I think that's a welcome change. Also, I know people who are cool with changes aren't likely to say anything about them so I'll mention that dropping the stars is fine with me.

I do have to say, I am missing the subjective ratings, or "stars". Even if you wanted to free yourself from Goldstein's rankings, it seems bizarre to look at a list and think "all #1's, #2's, and #3's are respectively created equal."

Not all five-star prospects are created equal. I wanted to focus more on the reports. If you read the reports, you will see how the players compare with other players. You can also use the OFP grades and risk evaluations to form those conclusions.

I didn't say that the star ranking was perfect, but compare Wily Peralta (last year's Brewers #1-4*) to any 5 star prospect and you can make my logical connection.

Unless I read line after line I have no way of directly comparing one player to the next. While I do read a great deal of the reports, there is a lot that I skim. The star rating made certain things easy.

This isn't about rejecting change, this is about gaining an easier perspective. Having both a rating system (a precise rating system, which I haven't found a prospect rating system in any sport that doesn't use one) and this current system would have been the best way to go.

Brandon...2 things. 1) I'm curious. What's the reason you compare prospects beyond their rank and OFP? Seriously, just curious. I'm not being malicious. 2) I'm not sure I get "a precise rating system, which I haven't found a prospect rating system in any sport that doesn't use one." Are you saying that you've seen a precise rating system for prospects in every sport?

Just to give you an idea where I'm going with this, you compared the Brewers (#1 prospect) Peralta, a 4 star prospect, to any 5 star prospect to make a logical connection. Makes sense. I completely understand. But is comparing the Cubs #1 prospect Brett Jackson, a 5 star prospect last year, to Mike Trout or Bryce Harper, also 5 star prospects, logical at all? I think you understand my point. You have to use some thought or analysis to differentiate no matter what system is used.

Again, if you actually read the scouting evaluations, you should be able to compare players without much trouble. I wasn't a fan of the star ratings. Instead, we are using the more defined OFP grades and risk distinctions.

Hi Jason, just wanted to clarify this a little. Looking at the ratings above, the Astros have a whole bunch of players with 6 potential, and they appear to be all mixed up in order, despite various levels of risk - for example, you have Springer (6/High risk) ahead of DeShields (6/Moderate risk). Why might that happen?

Also, I'm assuming a 6 player is pretty much equally valuable at any position (except for relievers maybe). Is that right?

Finally, is it fair to say that you see Cosart and McCullers pretty much exclusively as relievers, or do either of them have a realistic chance to stick as starters?

For me, a 6 center fielder is more valuable than a 6 second baseman. It depends on the specifics of the skill-set, of course, but like any grading system, the final label attached to the player will be too vague, too impersonal to give the full-story. How much value does a quality center fielder really have over a quality second baseman? Well, it depends on the construction of the team, but for the most part, I tend to favor positional value if the overall potential is the same. If you offer me two role 6 players, and one is a second baseman and one is a center fielder, I'm much more likely to prefer the player at the premium position.

Sure, these reports seem to read like organizational scouting reports and to some measure that is good. Still, I'm a serious enough fan to read BP, but I don't spend all my free time reading about prospects.

I liked the star ratings because it gave me a very good way to compare systems and trades. Sure, they're not perfect, and might rub some scouts the wrong way, but I'll bet most "BP-serious" fans find them helpful, not to mention the vast majority of lesser fans and potential subscribers.

I hope this is part of a conscious choice by BP to move closer to the industry and away from fans, because it sure seems that way to me.

readers are certainly looking for more than stars just like we look for more than batting average, but that doesn't mean BP's taken batting averages off the page. The PFPxRisk thing just will take some getting used to.

We're not moving away from anything. It's just a new way of doing things. We understand people don't liek change, and we appreciate your concern. On the other hand, as Jason indicated, comparing star ratings across teams is no more accurate that comparing players without star ratings. Not all 5 star players are created equal. So trading one five star player for another five star player doesn't necessarily mean a trade was equal. The substance of the analysis is in the reports and detail...just like in real life baseball. That's a good thing for the fans IMO.

i like this much better. more numbers = more separation between the players and more precise analysis. what's the point of giving a guy three or two stars when it seems like about 60-70% of the guys out there would be in that range?

Not smoke and mirrors; he has good stuff. The system has a lot of talent, and he just didn't make the cut. He has a very good fastball, with plus velocity that can touch higher. The secondary arsenal isn't great, and the command needs work, but he will be a major league arm. The ceiling could be a back-end type, but with a four-seamer with a little punch to it, he could probably carve out a better career in the 'pen.

I really like the new format. I don't need the "stars" as much as I need the quality and depth of the write-ups. I like the OFP too. One thing I would like to see next year is adding the "last year's OFP" to it, so we can perform an improvement or regression analysis (tracking players) without having to pull up the archives. Very well done JP and Crew.

Nice work on this guys. I'm solidly anti-Villar, but other than that I agree with the rankings (not that my opinion matters).

For what it's worth, what's your take on Preston Tucker? Was projected to go in rounds 2-4, fell to 7. Raked in college, raked in pro ball so far, but scouts don't seem to like him because of his body. Any thoughts?

Not the biggest fan of the profile. The bat needs to be really, really good to play. The body is already quite thick, and as you mentioned, that is a concern for some people going forward. The sample is small, so if he can move to full-season ball and show the stick, he will move up the board.

I was excited to get a look at Tucker in the NYPL this season, but he left me disappointed. He works counts and forces young pitchers to throw him strikes, but advanced pitchers will exploit him. Advanced defenders will get to Tucker's dribblers up the middle. The type of contact I saw from him was rarely impressive. It's going to take a lot for him to become a 50 hitter, and the body isn't going to help him stick in LF. Outside chance as a second division first baseman, for me.

Thanks guys, it's obvious to me that the "team effort" approach to this article has paid off in spades. That all three of you answered my questions with real observations and data makes BP even more credible as a source of prospect knowledge because it's not just a "one guy" take.

Nicholas Tropeano couldn't even get a mention? Even in the guys on the rise? Boy oh boy, if you aren't drafted in the first two rounds, you're chopped liver until you start throwing no-hitters in AA I guess.

We don't have a draft bias. He was on the bubble for the 10th spot with Folty. Ultimately, we went with the guy with the slightly higher ceiling. He wasn't included in the "On the Rise" list because I don't feel his prospect status is on the rise. We thought he had a back-end projection. His CH is a very sick pitch, but the rest of the arsenal is more pedestrian. It wasn't personal. We just didn't think he was among the top ten players in a very deep system.

Last year there was — at the top of each team's report — a "Previous Ranking" line where you could click on specific years to read those listings. That was pretty useful. Possible to add that back in? Thanks!

Similarly, in each player's writeup, it might provide an interesting perspective if you could add an indicator of where he ranked last year in that team's rankings, if applicable. Helps to show their progress, or lack thereof.

I appreciate the suggestions, but this is the finished product. KG's lists can still be found on the site. But this is a new product with a new process, so using KG's rankings in comparison to the new model might not be all that helpful. Going forward, we will link back to previous rankings, but we have to establish our own product first.

Another thumbs down for removing the stars. They were useful for my purposes since my interest level wanes as quickly as the talent level drops. It was one clear advantage over BA's write-ups, and removed questions of interpretation when it came to identifying Top 50 prospect types in advance of the Top 101 (assuming that will still exist). Perhaps I'm way off, but slapping on stars seems like a small effort compared to the heavy lifting of research. When you pay for convenience, losing it isn't fun.

It's not my fault that your interest level wanes. We are providing a thorough and thoughtful product, and we decided this construct was the best vehicle to deliver scouting information to the readers. This isn't a $3.99 buffet at the Golden Corral.

I don't subscribe to that. If the reader wants to be lazy, the work shouldn't have to apologize or cater to that laziness. The people that want to participate are encouraged to participate. I hope people engage with the work and push me (and it) to higher levels. Then there are people that want it made easy so they don't have to invest in the effort. I'm not here to chew your food; I'm here to provide a thoughtful chili.

We are giving the majority of the readers what they want. We discussed the options and decided to follow this path. Unfortunately, we can't do everything for everyone, and some people are bound to be unhappy. That's the nature of all things in life. We feel as though we put forth an extremely strong product and continue to provide analysis that nobody else has.

I very much enjoy the new format. The context and descriptions are excellent. Until someone mentioned it in the comments, I hadn't noticed that the stars were gone.

I don't miss them, but I can appreciate why some people would--perhaps you could add some context/depth to comparisons across systems. I do plan on reading each system review, but it will be tough to keep 300+ write-ups in mind when attempting to compare. Will you be ranking the systems at the end?

It was interesting to note that none of the many prospects sent over by the Blue Jays for J.A. Happ were worthy of a mention other than Asher Woj (and he barely got that).

Are any of those players worth keeping an eye on, or are they damaged goods/lottery tickets with limited chance of success?

I would say the 9-15 range of prospects in the system were tough to rank. Ultimately, we went with Folty at #10, but the list was deep for that spot. Guys like Woj were very much in the debate. I'll say this: The Astros have a lot of depth, and most of that depth will eventually contribute to the major league club on some level. That's impressive. Most of the players they traded for last season have realistic major league floors. The ceilings might be limited and the prospect status might not be that sexy, but they have a chance to help out the major league squad. That's huge.

Excellent piece! After reading about Jarred Cosart, it sounds like you're insinuating lacks a closer mentality? Or does fortitude mean something else? Do you believe in the closer mentality? If so, where would that go in the scouting report?

Thanks. I do believe in closer's mentality. It's in the makeup. The ability to pitch in high pressure situations and deal with failure. It's huge. Not every pitcher has it. Some of the sources I spoke with questioned whether or nor Cosart had that necessary attribute in his skill-set. Sometimes you just have to get thrown into the fire before you know if you can handle the heat. Cosart has yet to stand on the rubber in a high-leverage situation at the major league level, so the jury is still out.

I will withhold judgment on the new format until I see a few more writeups, since several things you've said imply that the Astros have a rather unusual system, at least in terms of depth. It may be clearer how their system compares to others, which I think is one of the things people are clamoring for, once we've seen the writeups for those others. This said, it's good writing technique to make some readily-accessible "summary" available, whether that takes the form of stars or something else. Maybe copy the "Overall Future Potential" lines in the "top ten" list at the top of the article? One way or the other, thanks for keeping the content alive.

I want to encourage people to read the reports, make every effort to understand the reports, and draw their conclusions from those reports. It might take time, but I think this construct will force people to learn more about the prospects they follow.

This isn't a rough draft. This is the final product. I do appreciate the suggestions, but what you are reading today is what you will be reading for all teams.

The new format is fantastic and is exactly what I want when I am reading about prospects. I want tools profiles, ceilings, risk explanations etc and you guys have pulled it all together into a thorough, easy to read format. I sound like fanboy but I love the format and look forward to then next 29. I'm also happy that I didn't have to wait for my favorite team's report. Nice job to all involved.

I know Jimmy Paredes was mentioned briefly as a utility guy late in the article, but I was curious as to where you like his glove the best? I saw him play some third and outfield, and was curious as to how good with the glove he can be.

I have a general question about the extent to which command plays into the tool grade of a specfic pitch. The "easy 7" grade you gave to Cosart's fastball prompts the question. I happened to see him in the AFL game on Sat and he had a lot of trouble commanding the fastball. And, of course, you bring up the command issues in other places of the report.

So, is it really possible for a pitcher with Cosart's command issues to have an "easy 7" fastball?

I noticed in other places you've noted 7 power, but 6 game power. It seems like this is an analogous situation for pitchers. Maybe there's a 7 fastball in there somewhere, but if it's not very game likely, then I'm not sure I can see it as "easy".

In bursts, I think Cosart could have an 8 fastball, but he doesn't command it well enough and he doesn't hide it very well. Velo is obviously a big part of the overall grade, but movement and command are very important as well, especially movement. Big league hitters can hit velocity, but when you can add movement to that equation the pitch becomes even better. In Cosart's case, I can see how his 7 FB might play down because of the command. When he can spot it, though.. its nasty.

Put me in the group that misses the stars. Is it somewhat lazy? Maybe, but it allows us to compare the depth of systems without doing an exhaustive reading for each pair.

Two other comments:
In drafted/acquired, for players who have been traded (such as Cosart), it would be cool to see the date and details of the trade, as an indicator of how he was valued at that time.

Why is Springer just listed as an OF? Oversight? If it's a young player with undeveloped defensive skill, I can totally understand it, as his ultimate position is still up in the air. However, you list a strength as "above-average defensive profile at premium position". I'd assume that means he's a centre fielder, but "plus arm" could also indicate he's a right fielder.

I'm just trying to deliver quality information in an accessible manner. If you want in-depth coverage, all you have to do is read the reports. If you don't want to do exhaustive reading, I can't solve that problem for you. You will get out of these what you are willing to put into them. If you want an easy-to-swallow slideshow, I'm sure Bleacher Report will produce a prospect list. If you want to read detailed evaluations and take the conversation to another level, let's go that route. I think the majority of people on this site demand that from the writers ( as they should).

Springer is listed as an outfielder because his ultimate role hasn't been defined. Yes; I think he profiles best in CF. But his developmental journey isn't over yet, and like you said, he does have the skill-set to play other spots in the outfield if necessary.

I really dig the new format, and I appreciate the inclusion of the player pictures as well! I also like the addition of Prospects on the Rise and Factors on the Farm, and the two different set of players covered this way. I think that section would benefit if player's ages were also included (I understand we won't get the full information as in the Top 10, but there should be enough room for DOB, right?)

Thanks to everybody involved, I am excited about all the remaining lists and write-ups!

I agree with the readers that the star rating system was useful for comparing prospects across organizations. It was giving us something that Baseball America wasn't. I can see that it is hard work, though, and not your thing, Jason. I'm OK with your giving us what you can and not wasting your time on translating all of this information into a single simple star rating.

What might be useful, though, and actually easier for you despite the added output is to give two ratings: 1. floor rating; 2. ceiling rating (which you already do with the "Overall Future Potential").

. . . but honestly, it's not a big deal. In fact, I actually prefer the format as you have it, because I can easily find what I need to know about each prospect. I feel confident I can make whatever overall value translations I need for my purposes better myself.

Thanks. Each evaluation should contain a a casual note about a player's floor, either mentioned in the risk factor notes, or in the strengths/weaknesses. If not, I'd be happy to answer any/all questions about a player after the fact.

Jason, I really like the new format - the font changes, spacing, and the pictures combine to make it an enjoyable and easier read - and especially the presentation of information. Every lawyer appreciates a reading a well-thought out risk analysis; when its about prospects, its even better.

One thing I miss that I haven't seen anyone else mention is the "Ephemera" that KG used to include. I know these rankings are not his, and I understand and respect that something like that doesn't quite fit in with the new style - but I really liked them! Maybe I'm just a trivia buff, but I found it enhanced my enjoyment of the rankings. Are you thinking / did you think about doing something similar?

Nope. Never thought about it. Oddly enough, those were my favorite aspects of KG's prospect rankings. Loved them. It was a very KG move. Hopefully the little quirks in the new construct will prove to be equally enjoyable; although, as you might have read above, not everybody likes the Beatles or likes "creativity," so it might be a tough sell.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Maybe in the future we will look to add something else to equation. I always loved the Ephemera. I don't think it fits with this new format, but something will.

Seriously, on what planet were the March 2012 versions of Bryce Harper and Brett Jackson and Francisco Lindor remotely of the same value/quality as prospects? The system didn't enable easy comparisons, it enabled lazy, misleading comparisons, and we're all better off with the more granular approach.

Seems to be a lot of comments about star ratings, funny thing is I can remember in the comments of KG articles lots of people wanting gradings of the tools etc which we now have and is great.

This is the thing folks, life changes and the stars were KG's thing. When someone new comes in they will want to do their own thing and have their own opinions. That's one of the things I loved about KG was that he did things the way he wanted to. That's what I love about Jason is that he will do his own thing.

For a fantasy guy who wanted a heads up on the opposition and the top 100 the stars are a loss but as a person who wants to understand more about prospects I think this is far better as it makes you think more about the player, what they can and can't do and the risk.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this list, thanks for the hard work. I suspect even the naysayers who want stars and hate the Beatles will stick around for the rest.
Even without KG, the prospect content on this site has continued to be easy 80-grade, and will undoubtedly be the highlight of my offseason baseball reading. Great job, guys.

PS, really digging the player photos. Finally we get to see what these guys actually look like.

Of all the Rube moves that have been made I believe Singleton will ultimately prove to be the one who got away. I'm curious to see what Cosart becomes and I'm interested in seeing what Santana looks like when he's not in Lancaster anymore but I've seen enough and read enough of Singleton to really like the kid's potential.

This might be a really dumb question, so I apologize if thats the case. But when you say Correa projects to possibly have "7" for power does that mean for Shortstops, or all prospects regardless of position?

Enjoy the new format, and appreciate the well organized information. The best feature of this site didn't skip a beat.

At first, I was irked by the lack of stars. Then I realized what JP was doing. I appreciate being given the tools to think for myself, instead of being dictated to. Not that KG was a dictator, but the stars did have a way of dumbing things down. So far, so good, JP.
What is your take on Musgrove, Comer and Carlos Perez?
I understand comer lost some velo this year - how much? Injury-related? What was Musgrove's injury and how reasonable are his chances for recovering his stock from 2011?
Thank you!

Congrats on getting the first one out. Format firestorm or not, it has to feel good! Speaking of, the matter of format is a trivial one. What really matters is how the prospects pan out, particulary the ones you deem high OFP/low risk. Just like a trade involving prospects, it may take a while before we know whose analysis and ranking of prospects was superior. But there's no disputing the effort you've put into this, and I believe that will be appreciated by most of us readers. Thank you!

I also mis the stars, but appreciate you doing something different and I enjoy the new format. Well written and analyzed, best of luck to you going forward. I eagerly await to see how crappy my Brewers farm looks. ;-(

Personally, I enjoy change. For me, this particular combination of wit, dynamic writing and insightful inside information about prospects is absolutely refreshing stuff. That's nothing against KG at all, just a vote in favor of the new way.

I don't like the profile. Not sold that he can stick in the OF, which puts even more pressure on the bat. Lots of raw power, but not sure the bat develops enough to have major league value at 1B or DH.

I prefer 2/8. Half grades can still factor in, though. Example: High 5; Low 5; Low 6; High 6, etc. It's the same as saying 55 or 65. I tend to prefer 2/8 because of the role factor. If you write that a player is a 55, what about that player isn't a 6, or isn't a 5? I think eliminates some of the hedging. 55 is a nice balance; its safer. But if you think the player is a 6, call him a 6. Or if you think he's closer to a 5, call him a 5.

Jason, I dig the format and like the depth of the work you put into this. One thought though:

You assign players their OFP based on the 2 to 8 scale, that is clear. However, in many instances a player's true potential is tied to the role that they play. Maybe a two-pitch pitcher with great velocity is currently a SP in the minors but projects as 7 closer candidate but only a 5 starting pitcher. If you were doing a profile for that player, would you assign an OFP of 5 or 7? How would we, the reader, know which you were referring to?

After the OFP grade, I will mention the role if it changes from the profile, like in the case of McCullers. He is currently a starter, will be developed as a starter, but I think he ends up a 7 reliever. If applicable, I'll make sure to mention it.

Where do you see Stassi and Peacock fitting in? I wouldn't think top ten but would they have been deserving of mention had they been acquired before press time? BTW, great meeting you at the Astros game earlier this year.